Gripen demonstrator rolled out

[swerve]

There should be a Gripen thread somewhere, but I can't find it. Therefore this one.

One interesting thing is that the press release says it's getting "a new Saab/Thales active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar". No word on hos much of the new gear (e.g. F414G engine, new avionics) is actually fitted to the aircraft shown today, unfortunately.


With pictures - click on "Gripen image base".

I look forward to it flying.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There should be a Gripen thread somewhere, but I can't find it. Therefore this one.

One interesting thing is that the press release says it's getting "a new Saab/Thales active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar". No word on hos much of the new gear (e.g. F414G engine, new avionics) is actually fitted to the aircraft shown today, unfortunately.


With pictures - click on "Gripen image base".

I look forward to it flying.

Without wishing to denigrate those Gripen fans out there, the "new" Gripen will be using a Thales AESA antennae in it's much vaunted AESA upgrade...

What were all those arguments a few months back, about Sweden's AESA radar capability again?

 

[SlyDog]

Aussie Digger: Remember this is about demonstrator program. Not the "end product". By the way, its not news to me that SAAB just go "halfway" to a full feathered AESA, as a first step.

Link

 

[swerve]

Without wishing to denigrate those Gripen fans out there, the "new" Gripen will be using a Thales AESA antennae in it's much vaunted AESA upgrade...

What were all those arguments a few months back, about Sweden's AESA radar capability again?

All about back-end, I think. Ericsson used a Raytheon antenna for development when it started working on AESA fighter radars, & has had various joint projects, e.g. with Selex, which I suspect have been about choosing who to get an antenna from. Now we know who they've settled on. Thales, which means UMS T/R modules.

They have, of course, had an operational airborne AESA radar for over a decade, but it's not exactly suitable for a fighter.

 

[rattmuff]

And here we have the standard facts and so on in a pdf-file:
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/...B42B761A7F9/0/GripenNewsDemo_080414_final.pdf
My tip of the day is: Read the pdf!

 

[z1pp0]

Perhaps we will see all of those 100+ surplus gripens rebuilt as NG's. Another airbase (F21 Luleå) is market for disbandment. Actually the whole Swedish defence force is halfed!

At one time the single seat NG was proposed to have the extended fuselage of the two seater (for greater fuel/range). But the pdf claims the same length as the C. I guess that rebuilding the older surplus airframes as NG's would seem a good way to get rid of them. : Considering that the Gripen Demo is an old B model, and looking at the limited detailed 3D drawings of the pdf it looks feasable. Besides I dont hink that either SAAB, Gripen international, FMV or the swedish government would just throw away perfectly good aircraft. Or maybe not..

\\Dan

 

[swerve]

And here we have the standard facts and so on in a pdf-file:
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/...B42B761A7F9/0/GripenNewsDemo_080414_final.pdf
My tip of the day is: Read the pdf!

Good tip!

Very interesting. It reads as if this has a modification of the antenna for the RBE.2 AESA, grafted onto an upgraded PS-05/A back end with new software.

 

[Grand Danois]

The Ares blog has been busy.

The big news today was that Thales has been selected as the partner for the new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; in fact, the selection took place in October 2007. The demonstrator radar will be a prototype combining the modified back end of the C/D's PS-05/A with a Thales array, using modules that are already flying on a test-bed as part of the Rafale AESA program. It will fly on the Demo in the summer of 2009.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:08b69f7e-cc4c-478b-a302-0b367d0b98b7

and

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:5321db4e-30b7-4acd-a0fc-86e6b41d5789

and

The chief airframe changes are a new main landing gear which makes room for 40 per cent more internal fuel, the GE F414G engine, a simple modification of the Super Hornet engine (it is actually cheaper than the RM12 that it replaces) and two extra underfuselage weapon stations. The Demo will also test a prototype active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:76e1b4a5-2302-4d04-99c9-869e490791f9

 

[Dr Freud]

Without wishing to denigrate those Gripen fans out there, the "new" Gripen will be using a Thales AESA antennae in it's much vaunted AESA upgrade...

What were all those arguments a few months back, about Sweden's AESA radar capability again?

There are two versions: from pdf
1/ As Gripen NG is a platform for the 2015 timeframe, it is clear that many of today's technologies will have moved on by the time
the NG is avaliable. For example, active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, communications, electronic warfare and weapons development - all at the heart of Gripen NG's improved capabilities - does not stand still. Therefore, while the Gripen Demo aircraft will be invaluable in sketching out the road map for Gripen's future development, the ultimate NG systems fit will go even further. The AESA radar to be trialled on the Demo will deliver invaluable integration data and operational experience, but it will not be the final configuration for the Gripen NG.
and 2/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/892donqz.asp?pg=1

AESA technology is already in use in several of Saab’s products, such as the Erieye airborne early warning system, the short-range search and acquisition radar Hard, the surveillance radar system Giraffe AMB and the artillery locating radar Arthur.

 

[caprise]

Why Thales was chosen is explained by Peter Andersson (product manager at Saab Microwave Systems):

At present Thales is developing an AESA within a French radar programme and, like Saab Microwave Systems, is one of the world leaders within the radar field. Together we can quickly develop a demo-product that can show the markets the advantages of AESA technology. The collaboration over the antenna is also cost effective and is in line with Saab’s overall strategy of finding industrial partners for Gripen.

://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=93540&session=dae.36165695.1209037057.4Fbkq38AAAEAAAb6I00AAAAk&modele=release
(Add http above)

Thales is also leading the Korrigan project (If that´s alive?) with the goal "to develop a stand alone European supply chain and capability for GaN HEMT technology which will provide all major European defence industries with reliable state-of-the-art GaN foundries services." SAAB is also one of the seven "systemhouses" involved.
://www.gaasmantech.org/Digests/2006/2006%20Digests/3D.pdf
(Add http above)

At the time Gripen NG is supposed to go operational (~2015-2020) I think it´s quite possible that Europe might have catched up some (if not all) of the american antenna lead? But no need for "some" here to go thru the roof it´s just a personal guess.

C.

 

[Sintra]

Why Thales was chosen is explained by Peter Andersson (product manager at Saab Microwave Systems):

://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=93540&session=dae.36165695.1209037057.4Fbkq38AAAEAAAb6I00AAAAk&modele=release
(Add http above)

Thales is also leading the Korrigan project (If that´s alive?) with the goal "to develop a stand alone European supply chain and capability for GaN HEMT technology which will provide all major European defence industries with reliable state-of-the-art GaN foundries services." SAAB is also one of the seven "systemhouses" involved.
://www.gaasmantech.org/Digests/2006/2006%20Digests/3D.pdf
(Add http above)

At the time Gripen NG is supposed to go operational (~2015-2020) I think it´s quite possible that Europe might have catched up some (if not all) of the american antenna lead? But no need for "some" here to go thru the roof it´s just a personal guess.

C.

Caprise

The simple fact that SAAB chose a French company to develop the AESA antena in direct competition with SELEX, Raytheon and Northrop speaks volumes about the capability of THALES.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

There are two versions: from pdf
1/ As Gripen NG is a platform for the 2015 timeframe, it is clear that many of today's technologies will have moved on by the time
the NG is avaliable. For example, active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, communications, electronic warfare and weapons development - all at the heart of Gripen NG's improved capabilities - does not stand still. Therefore, while the Gripen Demo aircraft will be invaluable in sketching out the road map for Gripen's future development, the ultimate NG systems fit will go even further. The AESA radar to be trialled on the Demo will deliver invaluable integration data and operational experience, but it will not be the final configuration for the Gripen NG.
and 2/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/892donqz.asp?pg=1

AESA technology is already in use in several of Saab’s products, such as the Erieye airborne early warning system, the short-range search and acquisition radar Hard, the surveillance radar system Giraffe AMB and the artillery locating radar Arthur.

It isn't used in fighter sized FCR's that have been manufactured by Swedish company's. The fact that they've chosen a Thales antenna for their demo proves that.

As to it's capability or otherwise, I'd suggest this shows NOTHING whatsoever about the relative capabilities, other than a general inference that this antenna is potentially more capable than the existing Gripen radar that so many have raved about.

Is it really that surprising that Raytheon AESA antenna's (for example) aren't being provided to a company that is a direct competitor in multiple fighter acquisition projects around the world?

The F-414 is different. It is an engine and not a particularly special one at that. It is hardly the "game breaker" that advanced fire control radars are...

 

[SlyDog]

Aussie Digger: The thoughts around the AESA is that SAAB want to use a kind of simple "frequency down mixing units" (I dont know if that is the correct terminology - a "device" in the radar as bring down received signal to a frequency, possible to sampling in sufficient rate.) But it appear problem when down mixing are done in a big extent. Frequency mirroring was one problem - and that result in need of advanced filter. So - SAAB want to be able to develop a simple radar unit - but that require faster Analog/digital-converter and processors. That should simplify the radar in a very big extent!!!


Links only in swedish unfortunately

Edit: the paper are from FOI
Swedish Defence Research Agency. Not SAAB.

 

[swerve]

...
Is it really that surprising that Raytheon AESA antenna's (for example) aren't being provided to a company that is a direct competitor in multiple fighter acquisition projects around the world? ....

The rumour is that Raytheon is happy to supply antennae (after all, it's supplied them as development tools), & was SAABs first choice, but it's been blocked. LM is, of course, strongly opposed.

Raytheon may think that having all the money from one radar, & a large part of the money from another radar, is an insurance policy when they're up against each other, not a threat. It may think it would gain more from supplying front-ends for any future SAAB sales, & for retrofits to existing Gripens, than it might lose in any hypothetical case where Gripen with a half-Raytheon radar is selected in place of a fighter with an all-Raytheon radar.

 

[Sintra]

It isn't used in fighter sized FCR's that have been manufactured by Swedish company's. The fact that they've chosen a Thales antenna for their demo proves that.

As to it's capability or otherwise, I'd suggest this shows NOTHING whatsoever about the relative capabilities, other than a general inference that this antenna is potentially more capable than the existing Gripen radar that so many have raved about.

Is it really that surprising that Raytheon AESA antenna's (for example) aren't being provided to a company that is a direct competitor in multiple fighter acquisition projects around the world?

The F-414 is different. It is an engine and not a particularly special one at that. It is hardly the "game breaker" that advanced fire control radars are...

Just to complement what SWERVE mentioned, there were four proposal´s evaluated by SAAB, one from Raytheon, one from Northrop, another from Selex and finaly THALES.
Whatever you may think of THALES capabilities its quite clear just looking to the "rivals" that the French offer was competitive, it wasnt just a question of the "antenna being potentially more capable" than the actual PS-05...
Far from it, Northrop would gladly contribute a SABR based antenna.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:df6022a1-6b56-4e57-8aa8-1a63b45dc889

 

[Dr Freud]

It is also like buying a computer today, but start to use it 7 years later.
Noone in his right mind would do it. Just compare p4 with quad core.
Seven years is a full generation leap in radar technology.

Come to think about it, this was precisely what they repeated in the pdf:

As Gripen NG is a platform for the 2015 timeframe, it is clear that many of today's technologies will have moved on by the time the NG is avaliable.

Including, but not limited to 1) AESA 3rd gen, 2) The broadband satellite communications link fitted to the Demo is not the final production fit. 3) Not all of the extra fuel capacity of the Demo has been utilised, but it will be implemented in production aircrafts. 4) The new missile approach warning system (MAWS) fitted to the Demo is an impressive new capability, but an even more advanced system is under consideration for the Gripen NG. 5) You get the idea

 

[Dr Freud]

I just read that Norways condition to buy "Super JAS" Gripen is if Sweden will also buy the latest version.
According to newspaper, the Swedish government on thursday decided to buy new super jas, if Norway buy.

It was confirmed on the Demo show that Gripen will have true supercruise capability.

 

[rjmaz1]

It was confirmed on the Demo show that Gripen will have true supercruise capability.

Opposed to untrue supercruise?

Just another sales pitch.

Only the F-22 has "true" supercruise capabilities. Even it takes a massive hit in range when cruising at supersonic speeds.

That means flying beyond the high drag transonic region in full combat configuration.

If an aircraft's combat radius is reduced by half when cruising at Mach 1.2 opposed to mach 0.8 then thats not very useful. Thats not much of an improvement on using afterburners. Cruise is meant to be dictate the speed at which the aircraft gets the most range.

Drag increases sharply either side of Mach 1. This region is called the transonic region. To get past this increase in drag all air around the aircraft must be supersonic. Usually that required an indicated air speed of between Mach 1.2 and 1.3.

This high drag region is so bad that an aircraft may have the same overall drag at mach 1.3 as opposed to Mach 1.05. So the same thrust is required to acheive Mach 1.3 as Mach 1.05.

However some aircraft can cruise at Mach 1.05 dry but not at Mach 1.3 dry. If the drag is the same then u may ask why it cant reach Mach 1.3? It all comes down to exhaust velocity. Turbofans with a higher bypass ratio has more air but traveling at a lower speed. A low bypass turbo fan has less air but has it traveling at a faster speed.

The Saab Gripen will not supercruise. It will definitely exceed Mach 1 in a clean configuration and will most likely exceed it with a light weapon load. It will not be able to exceed this high drag transonic region without afterburners with any kind of useful weapons load.

 

[swerve]

...
Only the F-22 has "true" supercruise capabilities......

Only according to the post-F-22 Lockheed Martin definition, tailored to what the F-22 does. I consider that an invalid definition. If LM wants to use a single word to define what the F-22 does that other aircraft do not, it should devise a new term, not redefine an existing one. It saddens me that people have succumbed to LMs sales literature so completely.

 

[Grand Danois]

But does the classic definition carry any meaning in operational terms? IOWs is LM right in redefining the term?

But fair enough, perhaps it would have been better if a new term had been developed.